Whatever happened to discovery?
It’s a cool, sunny late Autumn Sunday morning. You live in the countryside; the nearest village is a mile away. It’s been a while since you bought a Sunday paper. But for some reason, you want one.
Instead of getting in your car, as you normally might to do to drive the mile to the village to buy milk or go to the pub, you decide to walk. There are paths through the fields behind your house that take you to the top of a hill and then down to the village – which is actually less than a mile to walk.
You pull on some wellies and a jacket to keep warm and you set out. Along the journey you encounter several people out walking – some walking their dogs. One of them is a neighbour you haven’t seen or said hello to in over a year. You stop and talk, and find out that there is a developer planning to build several houses on a strip of land just down the road from you. Thirty houses.
There goes the neighbourhood you originally chose for feeling rural.
You continue walking until you get to the top of the hill and you look down both ways, past your house and into the rolling fields beyond. And then the way you are walking, down towards the beautiful picturesque village that you and your partner first fell in love with when the two of you were looking for a house in which to live.
You remember that it was a house that you wouldn’t have looked at because it wasn’t part of your specific search parameters when you were looking. But a friend had spent time out this way and they’d recommended you might want to have a look anyways.
You continue your walk down into the village, and you purchase your Sunday paper. The walk home is less eventful, but the clear morning air, conversation, and the views have reinvigorated you.
Over 17 years of working in digital, I’ve watched the language of design for the web change from flash interactive, “content is king”, design and functionality-rich experiences, to “efficient user journeys” and targeted search.
I listen to clients talk – as though it’s a badge of honour – about how less than 8% of their “users” come in through the home page, as they are deep-linking to their content from search engines like Google.
In many cases, content has become easier to find, with large e-commerce and content laden sites getting search, filtering and SEO down to a science. Given the mathematics and organisation methodologies involved – it is in fact a science.
It’s great that we can find things so quickly. After all, isn’t it true that we have so little time to do things as it is? Like taking that leisurely walk for the Sunday paper.
But what have we lost in the last 17 years while striving to make everything so easy to find – and so quickly?
While search accuracy has increased, discovery has taken a tumble. It’s often the case that as adults, we don’t set out to discover things. This was something we did as children – what’s behind that hill, how does this work, why is that the case? We don’t have time. We’re too busy. Remember?
As adults we set out to find things. We use search to do this. We jump to a result, and do a rapid assessment. If it meets our needs, we are finished. If not, research shows that we often “pogo” back out to the original search and either select another result, or search again.
Along that journey, where is the opportunity for exposure to new things? Where is the chance to find out about things happening that affect us? Perhaps we could have an app for that.
When do we slow down, just enough, to remind us of why we love or want to know more about the thing we are searching for to begin with… or to discover the unexpected along the way?
There is certainly a place for both search and discoverability in our lives. It’s about remembering to find a degree of balance. And sometimes reminding clients that up-sell and discoverability are not necessarily the same thing.
As always, all comments welcome.
Mobile Cloud Summit video
A couple of weeks ago I ran a panel at the Mobile Cloud Summit on Evolution of the Mobile Cloud, which looked at the impact of Mobile Cloud on User Experience. I really enjoyed the panel and its participants, which included Windahl Finnigan from Cap Gemini, James Clarke of Thin Martian, and Jules Ehrhardt of ustwo.
Apart from the fact I quite obviously need to go on a diet and get to the gym, the panel was engaging and the participants engaged and quite obviously experienced.
And now I see what people mean about my accent. Doesn’t sound quite American… oh well.
I hope you enjoy watching the panel: http://vimeopro.com/quadriga/mobile-cloud-summit-in-tech-city/video/30120511
UserZoom UX Seminar Series: The Evolution of Mobile from a User Perspective
On Tuesday, 4 October I’ll be on a Mobile Surgery panel at the UserZoom UX Seminar Series: The Evolution of Mobile from a User Perspective. Other speakers at the event include: Carina Hoogeveen, Account Director, UserZoom, Arthur Moan, Country Manager UK Ireland, UserZoom, Anders Rosenquist, the ZAAZ Head of Mobile, David Murphy, Editor, Mobile Marketing Magazine.
The event takes place at one of my favourite haunts, The Hospital Club, located at 24 Endell Steet, London WC2H 9HQ, from 2pm to 6pm.
To book the event go to: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2139617654
Prototyping as an ethos
When car manufacturers design a new automobile, they develop requirements, conduct research, draw designs, make scale models, test scale models in wind tunnels, computer model their ideas, build full-scale prototypes, test them, and iterate the designs – all of this before putting them into production.
What they don’t do is go right from drawing them on a piece of paper or having some ideas to putting them into production.
So they don’t base their decisions on a paper prototype or a list of words. Why? Because a car is a 3 dimensional experience. It is an experience of the senses. It is an interactive experience. You really need to understand it before you put it into production. Mistakes would be costly.
Most people, if you asked them to draw a picture of a car would do so. And the exercise would result in many different shapes, sizes, features, etc. However, if pressed, most people don’t actually believe they could design a car for production.
So why, then, do so many people believe they can design a website?
When done properly, websites go through a process of understanding requirements (those of the business – and the users), which can mean conducting research and workshops with all constituents to understand needs, desires, etc. All of this informs design and function. We sketch, we wireframe, we prototype, we test, we revise, we design, we build, we test, etc. There is a process that we follow, not because we want to be difficult, but because we are often delivering something, that in todays world, can sit at the core of a business’ strategy.
We wouldn’t want to take our responsibility lightly, because to do so could be catastrophic for the companies for whom we work.
So if we take our responsibility seriously, why don’t our clients? Why do they so often try to cut corners, cut out research and prototyping, shudder at the idea of iteration (which will equal cost now but provide potential benefit later), and railroad us down an agile path that promises iteration, but so often delivers linear, scaled-back development with no opportunity to evolve already built functionality?
Prototyping and testing gives you a real opportunity to test, iterate and re-test. It allows teams to incorporate learnings (other than their own) so that the end results more closely resemble the type of result that users might actually find useful.
If I could I would present a counter argument to this process to try and give some sense of perspective, but through all of the prototyping and testing I’ve been a part of throughout my career, there have always been a set of beneficial learnings that have come out the other end, and a set of clients (marketers, tech teams, stakeholders) who sit back and think ‘we didn’t know that before’.
I’d love to see more time built into projects for prototyping and testing because I enjoy it when projects are given a chance to be successful and clients are given a chance to shine when their results bear fruit.
And isn’t it better when we share our work while it has a chance of being improved than after when it is too late?
What’s that on your shoe?
Just a bit of rainy afternoon levity following on from my last post.
No Virginia… you are NOT the user
As individuals, we have many user experiences over the course of a day. Certainly over the course of a week, month, year… indeed a lifetime. In a sense, we become experienced users over time of many things, and remain inexperienced users of many other things. In some instances we feel we can extrapolate the experience by comparing it to ‘like’ experiences.
When it comes to designing apps for use on the internet, software, or web, everyone is an experienced user. At least that’s the impression I’ve gotten over the years in dealing with clients and colleagues.
Let’s take clients. They are often made up of many constituents: a business owner, stakeholders, marketers, project managers, IT geeks, editors, business analysts, and possibly even cobbled together components of a web team. Each of them has an opinion. Each of them view digital projects in terms of their own interests, experience, discipline and exposure (or lack thereof) to similar types of projects. They also have their own agendas – which are a double edged sword – that guide their actions.
I could almost forgive them, as they try hard, they all want to succeed for different reasons, and if their business does well, they will all look good. Unfortunately, just because 8 people are rowing in a boat doesn’t mean they are all rowing together – that takes time, collaboration, recognition that they are all working towards the same goals and objectives, and an honesty about their capabilities.
I could almost forgive them. But I won’t. They should know better by now.
But it’s not the clients that worry me most.
It’s people I’ve worked with over the years – and will work with in the future. The ones for whom the phrase ‘you represent the user on this project’ applies. The people who say it often have no clue what they are talking about. Of course, the only people who can represent the user on the project are, well, the users. And the Information (or Experience) Architect, who gets used to being beaten down when talking about inclusion of the user, after a time begins to believe that the only way to include the user is to ‘be’ the user. This is the one that really frightens me.
No Virginia… you are NOT the user.
The Information Architect brings a bag of skills and tools, a degree of experience, and the capability to open the doors to engaging with users on a project. The user should be the first port of call. Who are they? What do they want? How do they live? Why would they use or want a client’s products or services? When is the best time to engage them? Quantitative statistics that can only answer, to some degree, some of the questions above can only provide pathways to partially thought out designs.
The IA is often left to sort out the rest. And the worst part of this is that the more it happens, the more confident they become in their own capabilities – those of actually representing the user on projects.
Where UX represents a world of ubiquitous experiences for users (also see my blog posts on UX and the Art of Digital Appropriation and Pervasive UX – Who is Responsible?), more Information Architects, with their own values, interests, varied experiences and goals provide a dangerously seductive (and less costly) alternative to representing user experiences on projects.
I think this is something that everyone needs to be aware of and consider when they limit the potential of a project from the beginning by assuming the inclusion of Information Architects solves the issue of user engagement in the process. You cannot say you practice user-centred design when you do not engage users in the process.
No Virginia… you are NOT the user. The user is the user. Someday, you may have the opportunity to be a user on a project – where you are not doing the design. But until that day, please, everyone involved in projects, work harder to get to know who your users are, and please, do involve them in the process. It can be really quite rewarding!
Update 6 September 2011:
A good example of why this is important can be found on @pubstrat‘s latest blog post, ‘Cleaning up the user interface‘.
UX and the Art of Digital Appropriation
So, I feel caught in a language loop recently. I talk about (and practice) User Experience. I do these things in the digital/mobile space. And really, I’m mostly focusing on good, strategic paths to design.
But all of it is an illusion.
User experience is pervasive. It is ubiquitous. Like air. And I don’t design air… I breathe it, I need it to live, I experience it, it’s all around me. It’s ubiquitous too.
User experience is about more than just digital experiences. If we accept that it is pervasive, ubiquitous, we have to accept that it extends well beyond our digital boundaries. But we most often hear about “UX” in relation to developing digital experiences.
User experience has always existed. It’s just that we only really thought about it in terms of something that we create in the last half century. Product design is about creating user experiences. It pre-exists digital.
I think the discourse around User Experience needs to change. We need to move away from the tactical side of the now, ‘nameless’ profession, where practitioners argue over whether they are Information Architects, Experience Architects, Interaction Designers, etc. As long as we stay anchored to the pedantic, we’ll never aspire to the greater good.
I repeat, User experience is pervasive. It is ubiquitous. Companies and agencies need to step back and realise that the concept of user experience will mean change in the way their businesses operate. It’s too big to be owned by any one team, shoved down any one silo. It is too fundamentally important to leave to any one concept, methodology or team. To understand user experience is to create a fundamentally open and collaborative environment with a healthy exchange between and amongst users, businesses, agencies.
And we need to get away from it being a digital construction. It isn’t just about digital. Customers have more than just digital experiences. And as much as Martha Lane Fox and the current Government work to shove everyone down the digital path, if it is really about user experiences (ubiquitous, remember?) then it is about understanding people first and then creating products and services that meet their needs.
Digital has appropriated a universal experience. Digital is not ubiquitous… not yet, even though it’s easy to believe, living in London, that the entire world must be digital.
We’re at a pivotal point where organisations have the opportunity to become horizontally integrated extending all the way out into their communities – and with their communities invited into their organisations.
It’s time to be disruptive, silo-breaking collaborative horizontally-integrated experimentalists. Or whatever we want to be called.
Mobile Cloud Summit
On 21 September, 2011 the Mobile Cloud Summit will take place in Hoxton.
It is a one-day event that will focus on how cloud-based applications delivered via smart mobile devices are transforming business and society. It will also focus on the Mobile Cloud investment opportunity and will be an opportunity for leading IT companies, investors, entrepreneurs, and the tech media to get together and discuss.
I will be moderating a brand new session at Mobile Cloud Summit called The Evolution of the Mobile Cloud.
For more information on the event, visit the Mobile Cloud Summit website.
You can also track the event on Lanyrd.
Pervasive UX – Who is Responsible?
I’ve been thinking a lot about the ‘edges’ of user experience lately. Most projects demand tactical UX – a bit of research, some wireframes, perhaps a prototype, and some annotation.
It slots neatly into place in a project process.
But ‘User’ experience isn’t quite so tidy. Actual user experience is ubiquitous, pervasive. It doesn’t have neat edges or clear boundaries.
I’ve been talking a lot about pervasive UX recently. In the sense of brand, to me it encompasses all of the potential touch-points encountered by a user on journey.
For example… An individual might start a shopping order on their Tesco iPhone app in the morning. At lunchtime they might pop into a Tesco Express to grab a salad. When they get home that evening they get their mail and there are Tesco vouchers, which they then use when they log into their MacBook and finish their Tesco shopping order for the evening. The next morning, their shopping is delivered to their door.
Their Tesco journey moved from mobile to in-store to direct mail to the Internet to home delivery in the span of 24 hours. It moved from work to shop to home. Their experience of Tesco was a pervasive user experience.
And yet, for many brands, why are so many of the above functions managed in silos?
A single individual experienced the journey described above. Hopefully, they had an experience that felt integrated, efficient, economical, convenient and pleasant.
The reality is that while a user is a single entity (or a series of different entities with varying needs), businesses can be multi-faceted, politically divided beasts.
Take a bank that is undertaking a redesign of its home page. A single user comes to the bank website with a need, a desire to satisfy that need, and often less time than the bank would like them to have to satisfy their voracious needs.
Banks offer a variety of services: loans, current accounts, mortgages, pensions, investment plans, etc. The home page is like a giant billboard. Only imagine the political entities behind the scenes – we’ll call them business owners. They are each fighting for a piece of that billboard. In reality, they each want the entire thing. They fight, they squabble, they negotiate, eventually, they compromise.
The user often just wants to do one thing. But they have to wade through the bank’s compromise in order to get to the one thing that they want. It’s as though the bank turned itself inside out and exposed all of its organs to the customer. Now add in the in-branch experience, direct mail, real billboards, television ads, iPhone and iPad apps, etc. How many stakeholders do they have to handle those experiences?
Who is responsible for the pervasive user experience, the journey, of that poor individual who must experience everything this bank throws at it?
So I began by saying I’ve been thinking about the ‘edges’ of user experience. It’s easy to think about the historical deliverables, in terms of Information Architecture. But it’s more difficult to understand the role that User Experience might have to play in terms of business process change.
As businesses and organisations offer more information and functionality through more channels and in more places, it is imperative that someone considers who all of this was being done for to begin with. If the output, due to internal disagreement, is already a compromise, then the experience for the individual can only be fragmented.
Is the ownership, or at least the nurturing of this finally a job for the UX Strategist? Or are we now going even beyond this to a Board or Management team level role that is responsible for the integrated experience?
As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Update: 29 August 2011
There’s also another good take on Pervasive UX @windahl‘s blog.
Alphagov musings
A few weeks before it launched, Tom Loosemore kindly invited me over for a preview of the Alphagov prototype. I was given a whirlwind tour of their agile process and some of the thinking behind their work. Not to mention a very dark – and thick – cup of coffee. Hey, I’m not complaining. I like it that way.
I met a few of the team (some of whom I already knew), and watched as a group of Government Communication types were taken through the same whirlwind tour – a mix of curious and skeptical faces making up the lot.
On the whole, it was a pleasant visit.
When Alphagov launched a couple of weeks ago, it was amusing to watch the crowd of people – who several years ago berated pretty much anything we did at Directgov – practically fall over one another in praise of Alphagov. Surely, if they are happy there must be something to it.
Certainly the £261k spent on the project didn’t bother them. In fact, it was considered a bargain.
However, after a couple of weeks of love, the veneer began to crack and UX expert Lisa Reichelt chose to write about ‘Opportunities Lost – AlphaGov’, while Steph Gray, former BIS digerati chose to write about ’10 Things that Alpha.gov.uk gets wrong’ – in 2 parts (Part 1 & Part 2).
This past weekend, I attended the OpenTech conference in London, and attended the Alphagov team session. There were a number of interesting questions and points raised by the audience – and not very many fully formed answers forthcoming from the team – with some answers unfortunately missing the mark entirely.
Asking a few questions at the event has codified my thinking about the project. Below are some of the things I’ve been thinking about and some questions I have.
In general, I’m delighted to see that the Alphagov project has sparked so many conversations about the Government digital content landscape.
Aggregation vs. Distribution
When I worked for Directgov and variably headed up the Product Design and Innovate teams, there was a general sense across Government digital types – and from colleagues outside of Government – that we were exiting the era of websites as destinations, and that content (and services) were not fully distributable commodities, e.g. through mediums like social media and devices.
‘Convergence’ had lost its sense of purpose because users no longer expected to only find content (or services) in one place. They were learning that they could find information, services, social connections and a voice in places where they naturally reside and not have to go searching for it.
Alphagov, on the other hand, seems to not only take on Directgov’s historical remit of convergence, but according to one of the Alphagov team at OpenTech, takes it a step further resulting in the dissolution of all Government websites, making Alphagov the UK destination site for all things Government.
David Varney, himself, couldn’t have put it better.
But still, I’m curious, if in a world of growing distribution of content and services, where individuals are finding more everywhere, is this philosophy of aggregation and centralisation – ergo portalisation of content and services really the revolution spoken about by Martha Lane Fox in her report ‘Directgov 2010 and Beyond: Revolution Not Evolution’.
Solving the content sourcing problem
Though the Alphagov prototype is ‘pretty’ (and I’ll come back to that later), what I was most looking for in the project was revolutionary thinking about how the content sourcing issue would be solved.
With thousands of pages representing many millions of words of content sitting across Government, all in quite different formats, some accessible via feeds, some inaccessible and requiring content scraping, what was the plan to source (and make relavent), in a sustainable way, content from across all of Government’s assets?
From their own blogs and comments, the Alphagov team scraped content, adding editorial and curation on top. Expedient? Yes. Sustainable? Probably not.
Directgov already has a Publishing model whereby approved editors write content with their departments and it goes through a process of ‘curation’ ending up on the site.
While the Directgov model is probably a bit too process-laden (as many things in Government become over time), I’m not sure that the Alphagov project, which should be more than just a collection of pretty pages with scraped content demonstrating a possible end-state, has even tried to posit a solution to the content origination, curation and publishing problem currently faced by Government.
Going forward, I believe this is still one of the largest challenges facing any such effort.
Revolution – or a change from one institution to another – in this instance does not necessarily mean success.
Low hanging fruit
When developing a prototype or creating a demonstration in a limited amount of time, one avenue you can take is to pick off the low hanging fruit. For me, the Alphagov project is a demonstration of that approach.
Given the prototype – which of course is all we have to judge the success of the project by – it would appear the team has yet to:
- Tackle the development of a content strategy that takes into account all of the diverse and deep content the Government has to offer
- Do the requisite user research to develop a core set of personas that would help to give the site focus and shape
- Understand how to take content on a journey from origination to relevance without losing users along the way
- Ask users – not technically oriented colleagues – what they want
- Consider the organisational structure that would give their project a chance of success
- Demonstrate a system that is scalable and sustainable
It’s one thing to say you are developing a better Directgov website. It’s another thing altogether to say you are developing a better Directgov – which is really the driving force behind such efforts (remember the revolution bit).
These two things are not mutually exclusive if you want the process of engendering Revolution to succeed.
Putting the emphasis on Google
For years, Directgov has spent millions of pounds purchasing key words, advertising, etc. Because of this, they have reduced the amount of direct traffic coming in to the home page. While this puts less emphasis on the home page, it puts significantly more emphasis on the navigational structures of the internal pages to perform and inform users of other content (and services) on the site.
While the idea of relying on Google seems interesting, it really only works when all of your content is indexed and large numbers of people have hit the pages to help determine any sense of weighting or relevance.
If you deep link to the prototype at the moment, the only real means of navigation to other content seems to be via the search bar. This assumes that NO users are browsers and that the page they have landed on contains enough information to satisfy their search. Of course, the premise is that if they do not find what they are looking for, they will ‘pogo’ from the site and initiate a new search on Google. This is, in fact, sustained by research conducted by Directgov several years ago.
One worry, of course, is that unless Government intends to continue to pay a significant amount of money to Google for key words and paid search, is complete reliance on paid search engines such a good idea? And of course, doesn’t this further promote the idea of Government as a destination, rather than support the direction of content and services as distributable commodities?
And one incidental point, as the prototype has been developed to work as though people are using Google as the primary search method, there is currently no real means of testing Alpha.gov.uk to see if their premise actually works. All visitors will go to Alpha.gov.uk, entering the site via the home page.
UCD, Analytics and Accessibility
Alongside the talk of this being a User-centred design (UCD) project, there has been a lot of talk about their use of Government site analytics and web logs. Nowhere has there been discussion of user testing with real users, persona development, or other means of Qualitative research used in a UCD process.
From all accounts – and from their own words – they have designed based on the ‘what’ of analytics and not the ‘why’ of a qualitative UCD approach.
Additionally, to ignore IE6 – used by the Public Sector and many large public organisations, and Accessibility, they have denied those in the Public Sector and those with assistive technology needs the opportunity to participate in the discussion about improving Government digital services.
Just as Lisa Reichelt stated in her aforementioned blog post, I don’t believe they can claim to be a user-centred project when in fact they ignored most of the basic precepts of a UCD approach.
Is too much design distracting?
This is a small point, but for an Alpha prototype, I would question the level of design they have used. In some ways I’m not surprised. Solving the real problems of how you build such a site in a scalable, sustainable way would inevitably lead you back to something similar to a Directgov model, albeit scaled down to prototype size. And I imagine that no one really wanted to go there.
By focusing on the design and not being able to answer questions around it’s scalability and sustainability, is this just an exercise in form over function?
If we make it look nice no one will look to closely at what we’ve done.
An alpha should have set about to answer more fundamental questions. It should have looked at the problems it ran into during development and asked, how do we fix those problems? How do we ensure that as we iterate this prototype, we move closer to a sustainable and scalable model for development?
Perhaps those questions have simply not yet been articulated to the public. I think there is some opportunity for some real debate here. Collaboration with the public over how to solve the content issue could result in revolution. Or it could end up with simple iterations to Directgov’s existing process of publication – boring old evolution.
Is Project Austin the real Alpha?
A few years ago, Directgov undertook a project called Project Austin. Austin was an attempt to postulate a metadata driven model for delivering Government content (and services). Research was undertaken, personas developed, content strategies looked at, a prototype was developed (tested and iterated), and then… well, I don’t know.
What happened to it?
It was predominantly designed and developed by individuals who came to Directgov from the Commercial sector. They worked with Civil Servants and external research agencies to develop a new model – sound familiar?
Did the Alpha team take any cues from its predecessor, Austin. Did they review the work? Did they learn any lessons? Did they find anything of use from the project?
Does having a predecessor really make Alpha a Beta?
What have you learned?
This brings me to my last thoughts (and some questions) on Alphagov.
Three months is a good amount of time to form some opinions and make some decisions about what you would have done differently, whether you think you addressed the right issues, what obstacles you see in taking the next steps.
How does the Alphagov team intend to take the project forward? I know that the site is essentially up for a couple of months for feedback. I also know that the team intends to take the work forward.
Given that you have opened the site up for comment for a couple of months, does it make sense to keep changing it during that process? If you think of this as a consultation of sorts, you wouldn’t expect the consultation to keep changing as people commented. Do you think iterating it while you’re getting feedback will possibly cause you to change things that an accumulated set of responses might cause you to look at differently?
Will you continue to use your blog to keep people informed? And will you publish the feedback and thinking that you receive? There were a lot of comments at OpenTech at the weekend. Will these be captured and published?
And purely selfishly… how much will Alphagov cost going forward? We’re told the project cost about £261k – was that to get it to its recent launch?
I’d like to commend the team on doing something we had difficulty doing from within Government – getting a prototype out for public comment. This would have been inconceivable a few years ago. With the change in Government it’s nice to see some things are changing in the digital space for the better. For that you have my admiration. Despite any concerns I’ve voiced above, I think it’s important that efforts like this are taking place. I believe the team that undertook this project was highly capable.
That said, I really wish they had placed some dedicated UX people on their team. I wish they had focussed more on identifying and tackling the work that needs to take place to make it sustainable and addressed the issues of how to get content from so many different sources into a single place – other than scraping it.
But I think this team has raised some big questions for all of us to consider and have certainly gotten discussion going around all of these areas, which should be supported by all of us who have an interest.
I look forward to the next steps…
← Older posts